Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
R. Veeramani, S/o. S.P. Rangaswamy Chairman – Appellant
Versus
Anandgouda, S/o. Basanagouda Patil – Respondent
ORDER :
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.
1. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.10.2024 in Misc. Appeal No.4/2024 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Ballari.
2. In terms of said order, the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ballari directing payment of wages is confirmed.
3. The petitioner has also sought to quash the recovery certificate marked at Annexure-C dated 15.05.2024 issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner.
4. In terms of the order dated 10.01.2024, the Regional Labour Commissioner has allowed the claim petition dated 10.06.2022 filed under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (‘Act, 1936’). The Regional Labour Commissioner has directed the petitioner-Company to pay Rs.3,74,15,171/- to 72 applicants towards delayed wages from May 2020 to November 2022 (31 months). In addition, directed the petitioner-Company to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to each of 72 applicants named in the order.
5. Certain facts are admitted. The respondents were the workers under the petitioner which is a Company involved in granite business. The petitioner had quarry licence issued by the Department of Mines and Ge
The authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to impose wage payments if no work was performed; disputes arising must be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Point of Law : when a statute gives a right and provides a forum of adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the performance of the rights has to be e....
The Deputy Labour Commissioner's order was void as it lacked jurisdiction to award wages to a supplier of labor without identifying specific employees under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Claiming wages - It is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part th....
The Regional Labour Commissioner exceeded his powers in directing the principal employer to pay the differential wages under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
The Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain wage claims under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Limitation Act does not apply such claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
